August 17, 2010 

Office of the General Counsel 

Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121 

Memorandum for the Record 

Ex Parte Communication 

Department of Energy 

Meeting- Wednesday, July 14, 20103:00 – 4:00 p.m. 

The purpose of the meeting was to provide information to DOE staff on the Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Section 414 of the Energy Independence and Security 

Act (EISA) of 2007 to establish energy standards for manufactured housing. 

In attendance at the meeting were: 

Lois Starkey, Manufactured Housing Institute 

Emanuel Levy, Systems Building Research Alliance 

David A. Tompos, NTA Inc. 

Mark Ezzo, Clayton Homes, Inc. 

Michael Wade, Cavalier Homes, Inc. 

Michael Jensen, Sara Lynn Bunch, Harry Indig, Dave Conover, Kate Gehringer and 

Christopher Calamita, Department of Energy 

A copy of the agenda, prepared by Michael Jensen, is attached 

The meeting started a little late so we dispensed with the Introduction and Background, 

and started with the Issues for Discussion: (Please refer to the meeting agenda). 

DOE staff wanted to specific incremental cost information for various energy efficient 

measures such as insulation levels and techniques, fenestration, envelope and duct air 

sealing, and space heating and air condition, etc. utilized to meet energy requirements 

above the current minimum required in the HUD Code? For example, can manufacturers 

measure what the cost increases be to meet EneryStar requirements. 

MHI representatives were glad to get clarification on what DOE was requesting with 

respect to cost information, as they had been hesitant to provide cost data not really 

knowing what the new standards would be. DOE staff suggested that manufacturers just 

stipulate the criteria used or set forth caveats for providing such cost estimates. 
2111 Wilson Blvd. Suite 100 Arlington, VA 22201 Tel: 703.558.0400 Fax: 703.558.0401 

http://www.manufacturedhousing.org info@mfghome.org

2 

DOE staff asked if costs were difference between large and small manufacturers, and 

asked for specific information. MHI representatives suggested that there would be cost 

differentials. 

MHI representatives pointed out that the new energy standards will put manufactured 

homebuilders at a competitive disadvantage over site builders because the new, more 

stringent standards will be required for all new manufactured homes, and site built homes 

will continue to meet the lower, less stringent standards mandated by states and local 

jurisdictions. 

MHI members also pointed out current appraisal standards, lending products and loan 

underwriting standards do not consider energy efficiency, and the new energy standards 

will keep many qualified buyers from purchasing a new home. 

MHI members also said that because of transportation restrictions, it might be difficult to 

meet standards that require greater amounts of insulation in the roofs. MHI members 

also pointed out that the new standards would have a significant impact on the current 

code with respect thermal protection and condensation control. DOE needs to consider 

this when developing the new standards. 

The DOE also needs to consider that HUD is currently in the process of updating 

significant portions of the HUD code, as three major proposals have been published in 

the Federal Register within the last month. These changes will have a cost impact and 

the DOE standard must be established taking into consideration these changes. 

MHI members strongly supported provision for HUD to enforce compliance with the new 

standards rather than have HUD undertake enforcement. It was pointed out that this 

option would result in little or no additional costs to the manufacturer. 

The meeting adjourned at a few minutes after 4:00 pm. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Lois Starkey, Vice President 

Regulatory Affairs 

Manufactured Housing Institute 
______________________________________________________________________________ 

To: Lois Starkey, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Manufactured Housing Institute 

From: Michael Jensen 

Cc: Harry Indig 

Re: Agenda for Meeting on July 14, 2010 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Purpose: To provide an agenda for the July 14, 2010, meeting between the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) and the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) for the purpose of gathering 

information on issues central to DOE’s preparation of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under 

Section 413 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) (Energy Code 

Improvements Applicable to Manufactured Housing). 

Expected outcome: To gather information and access MHI’s knowledge of the manufactured 

housing industry prior to developing standards for energy efficiency in manufactured housing and a 

system to ensure compliance with these standards. 

Introduction and Background: EISA was signed into law on December 19, 2007. Section 413 of 

EISA directs the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) to issue regulations that establish standards for 

energy efficiency in manufactured housing. On February 22, 2010, DOE initiated the rulemaking 

process by publishing in the Federal Register an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) 

to solicit public comments and information relating to the design, construction, financing, operating 

costs, and other areas of relevance to establishing energy efficiency standards for manufactured 

housing. DOE currently is reviewing the public comments received from the ANOPR and meeting 

with members of the manufactured housing industry in order to issue a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NOPR) by early 2011. The NOPR consists of three separate areas of analysis: (1) 

generating energy efficiency standards, (2) ensuring compliance with the standards, and (3) 

ensuring compliance with other regulatory review requirements. 

Issues for discussion: If DOE is to generate an informed, reasonable, and defensible analysis for 

inclusion in and to support the standards proposed pursuant to the NOPR, both DOE and the 

manufactured housing industry will benefit from the assistance of MHI in providing relevant 

statistical and financial information.1

 DOE is interested in securing additional information from 

MHI related to the following issue areas: 

I. Technical criteria 

DOE currently is collecting data and information relevant to the energy and economic analyses 

associated with potential energy efficiency measures for inclusion in the NOPR. Energy efficiency 

measures include: 

 

1 Information provided will be subject to DOE’s guidance on ex parte communications 

(http://www.gc.energy.gov/documents/FRN_Ex_Parte_Guidance_Final_2_For_Website_.pdf) and will require MHI to 

prepare a memorandum memorializing the meeting to be placed in the public docket. Generally, information provided 

will become part of the public record; however, MHI may submit information under a request for confidential treatment. 
2

• Insulation levels and techniques, including associated construction impacts 

• Fenestration (windows, skylights, doors) 

• Envelope and duct air sealing 

• Space heating, air conditioning, and water heating equipment, including ducts and water 

piping 

• Lighting 

DOE also is interested in gathering information related to how construction may vary by 

geographical region, climate, home type (for example, single- vs. double-wide), or other 

characteristics, especially those that MHI believes are unique to manufactured homes in comparison 

to site-built housing. 

II. Compliance verification 

DOE currently is collecting data and information relevant to verification of compliance (e.g. 

conformity assessment) for inclusion in the NOPR. 

• DOE seeks MHI’s input on how the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 

(HUD) system of enforcing its regulations (the HUD Code) via third-party design and 

inspection agences impacts the manufactured housing industry; specifically, DOE is seeking 

information on the cost impacts of compliance verification to the industry and the additional 

rate of compliance enjoyed as an account of the current conformity assessment program. 

• How could DOE ensure that its energy efficiency standards were satisfied if DOE were to 

rely on HUD’s system of verifying compliance through third-party primary inspection 

agencies? 

• If DOE were to establish its own program to verify compliance separate from HUD’s system 

(e.g., via random inspections), what are the likely activities DOE would need to carry out, 

the costs associated with these activities, and the potential impacts on the industry? 

• If DOE were to establish its own program to verify compliance separate from HUD’s 

system, what additional benefits (e.g., increased levels of compliance) would be secured 

over and above reliance on the current HUD system (noting the DOE standards could be 

more rigorous than the current HUD Code and/or contain additional criteria that may require 

field testing to verify)? 

Further Information: As MHI may be able to direct us to members of the manufactured housing 

industry that can provide additional information regarding the aforementioned questions, please 

provide DOE with contact information of individuals or groups that would further inform DOE 

during the rulemaking process, including, but not limited to: 

• Manufacturers, 

• Dealers, 

• Part suppliers (windows, furnaces, etc.), 

• Financing personnel that specialize in manufactured housing loans, and 

• HUD-code enforcement personnel. 

DOE welcomes your response to the following issue areas that DOE presented in the ANOPR and 

encourages you to provide more detailed data wherever possible. 
3

(1) Differences between site-built and factory-built construction techniques that may justify 

creating unique energy efficiency requirements for manufactured housing that are different 

from the requirements in the 2009 IECC. 

(2) Specific construction cost data on manufactured home measures affecting energy efficiency 

such as insulation levels including associated construction impacts, fenestration (windows, 

skylights and doors), duct design and insulation, and permanent lighting; specifically any 

information on an increase or decrease in first cost to the home purchaser of designing and 

constructing manufactured homes consistent with the current IECC. 

(3) Other economic parameters such as lending scenarios, interest rates, loan duration, energy 

costs, and recommended values and approaches for addressing financial considerations and 

life cycle costs. 

(4) Statistics associated with HVAC system and equipment type, window type, and insulation 

levels, provided in recently built new manufactured homes by state or region. 

(5) Energy and/or operational cost savings estimates and/or metered data associated with 

different energy options for manufactured housing design and construction. 

(6) The range of design specifications available for products, systems, equipment, and materials 

used in the construction of manufactured homes, and statistics on their frequency of use in 

manufactured homes. 

(7) The manner in which applicable climatic differences should be addressed through a singular 

energy standard addressing manufactured homes. 

(8) Areas in the current HUD code that are directly or indirectly related to energy or affect 

energy use of which DOE should be aware in establishing energy standards for 

manufactured housing (e.g., structural requirements that could affect the ability of a wall 

assembly to meet certain energy efficiency criteria or the relationship of wind loads and 

fenestration design). 

(9) Relationship, if any, DOE energy standards for manufactured housing should have with 

other existing energy programs for manufactured housing (e.g., ENERGY STAR) and/or the 

analysis that DOE should conduct in assessing such programs. 

(10) Relationship, if any, that DOE energy conservation standards for manufactured housing 

should have with HUD’s manufactured home construction and safety standards. 

(11) Whether DOE’s system of enforcement should compliment and/or be compatible with 

HUD's existing system of enforcement of the HUD Code for manufactured homes. 

(12) What characteristics should DOE’s system of enforcement have? 

(13) Suggested sources, studies, and research results of other information considered relevant 

to DOE’s effort to establish energy standards for manufactured housing. 

Conclusion: Thank you for meeting with DOE and for providing information necessary to a fullyinformed rulemaking process. DOE will consider MHI’s input and we welcome MHI’s continued 

assistance throughout DOE’s rulemaking process.